Jim Knight: My hon. Friend will have noticed that I am extremely enthusiastic, in the light of such press coverage, to stress that small, especially rural, primary schools, should explore the potential of federation. Nowhere is that needed more than in increasing language specialism in primary schools. The ability of primary schools to come together under a federation not only saves money through allowing them to share perhaps a head teacher, but enables them to share specialist teachers, such as language teachers, and tackle the problem.

Edward Balls: This morning, I put before the House a written statement on progress in respect of 14-19 diplomas. In addition to setting out that UCAS recognising that the advanced diploma will be worth three and a half A-levels, Leeds university announcing that it will accept the construction and built environment diploma for entry to its civil engineering course, and Newcastle, Southampton, Sheffield, Warwick, Nottingham and Liverpool all announcing that they will accept the engineering diploma—and, indeed, the chair of the 1994 group of universities confirming that all its members will accept the diploma—the written statement confirms that more than 800 schools and more than 150 colleges will be offering diplomas from this September. It also sets out a regional breakdown, area by area, for Members of the House, and estimates that from September 2009, two thirds of secondary schools and three quarters of colleges will be offering diplomas as part of their curriculum.

Jim Knight: My hon. Friend is right: the Holocaust Education Trust, led so ably by Karen Pollock, does a fantastic job in organising not only the trips themselves, but the preparation for them and the work that takes place afterwards. My hon. Friend is also right to say that holocaust education of this kind is not purely about history, important though it is in the context. It has significant citizenship effects, and it also helps to combat bullying. We have problems with homophobic bullying and bullying of people with Gypsy or Romany background, as well as anti-Semitic bullying. If young people can understand where that can lead to, they can learn a significant amount from history.

Edward Balls: It is not. Let me take this opportunity to lay that claim to rest. Once again, a Liberal Democrat press release has proved to be very misleading. On page 25 of the guidance, we say that we want local authorities to take
	"decisive...early action to ensure that no school has more than 25 per cent surplus places".
	We say this as well:
	"It is also accepted that in order to preserve access for young children, there may be more empty places in schools in rural areas than in urban areas".
	We are absolutely clear about the fact that there is a presumption against closing rural schools. Of course, given that resources for local authorities are increasing, it is essential for budgets to be managed properly through co-location of services, through federations and through school budget managers. Local authorities can take a number of measures to avoid the closure of small schools. The idea that we have set out in guidance a plan to close 2,500 schools is simply wrong, and I am happy to put the record straight.

Edward Balls: We set out our intention to ask Brian Lamb, who, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is an acknowledged expert in this area, to examine the issues raised in the Select Committee report. We will publish written terms of reference and a timetable for his work in due course. We are doing this partly to examine best practice across the country, but also because experts on different sides of the debate have different views about the best way to approach statementing. We decided that rather than to rushing to a conclusion, the right thing to do was to ask an expert to examine the matter. That is what we will do, and we will set the timetable in due course.

Jack Straw: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement. As the House will be aware, there appeared in  The Sunday Times yesterday allegations that conversations between my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) and a constituent of his, Mr. Babar Ahmad, detained in prison on an extradition warrant, had been subject to covert recording when my hon. Friend visited Mr. Ahmad on two occasions in 2005 and 2006 at Her Majesty's prison Woodhill.
	I was made aware of the burden of these allegations on Saturday afternoon. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I discussed the matter and we agreed that an immediate inquiry should be established. In a statement to  The Sunday Times issued on my behalf early on Saturday evening I announced this, and expressed my concerns about the allegations, if true.
	It may assist the House if I now give some detail of the differing ways in which the statutory authorisation regimes for intercept, and for intrusive surveillance, operate. But just before I do so, let me underline the fact, drawn from my experience as a Minister directly involved in these matters over many years, that no authorisations are granted unless by law they are necessary for the detection or prevention of crime or the protection of national security or for related matters, and are proportionate, and unless the information concerned cannot be obtained by other means. Any authorisation for the interception of telephone calls and other public telecommunications requires a warrant personally signed by the relevant Secretary of State—usually the Home Secretary in respect of the police, Security Service and other domestic law enforcement agencies, and the Foreign Secretary in respect of the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ. Such a Secretary of State warrant is also required for surveillance operations—including eavesdropping—where sought by the three intelligence agencies. The telecommunications regime is overseen by the interception of communications commissioner—normally a retired member of the senior judiciary, currently Sir Paul Kennedy. This is laid down in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000—known as RIPA. Surveillance under this regime is overseen by the intelligence services commissioner under the Intelligence Services Act 1994.
	Under the 2000 Act, the regime in respect of intrusive surveillance operations by the police and other domestic law enforcement agencies is different. Under these provisions, which originated with the Police Act 1997, passed in the closing months of the previous Administration, with our support, there is a hierarchy of approvals depending on the nature of the surveillance concerned. In the case of eavesdropping operations, authorisation by a chief officer of police or officer of equivalent rank in the Metropolitan Police Service is required. This regime is supervised by the chief surveillance commissioner—currently Sir Christopher Rose, formerly a senior judge of the Court of Appeal. Ministers play no part in these authorisations.
	Where any operation involves the use of premises of HM Prison Service, neither the Prison Service nor the Minister concerned is asked for any additional authorisation for the particular operation. What the Prison Service is asked for, on the basis of a brief summary, is permission to conduct the operation, and that judgment by the Prison Service is based on whether any order or control issues arise, not on the merits of the authorisation itself.
	The story in  The Sunday Times related to claims in respect of an alleged operation sought by and authorised by the police. It follows that this matter falls within the regime supervised by the chief surveillance commissioner. I can now announce to the House that, with the agreement of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, the chief surveillance commissioner, Sir Christopher Rose, has agreed to conduct an inquiry with the following terms of reference:
	"To investigate the circumstances relating to the visits to Babar Ahmad at HMP Woodhill by Sadiq Khan MP in May 2005 and June 2006, to establish whether the visits were subject to any form of surveillance and if so by whose authority and with whose knowledge, and to report his findings to the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and"
	to me as
	"the Justice Secretary."
	The inquiry will of its nature be fact-finding. Sir Christopher has told me that his aim is to conduct the inquiry as quickly as possible, but consistent with the thoroughness required. He says that he will do his best to complete his task within two weeks. A further statement will be made to the House once we have received and have been able to consider his findings.
	It may assist the House if I mention two other matters. The first is the Wilson doctrine. This, as the House knows, was originally promulgated by the then Prime Minister, the late Harold Wilson, in 1966, when he said that he had given instructions that there was to be no tapping of the telephones of Members of Parliament, and that if there were a development that required a change of policy he would, at such a moment as was compatible with the security of the country, make a statement about it. The terms of that statement have been endorsed by successive Prime Ministers, including by Tony Blair in a written ministerial statement to the House on 30 March 2006. In a written answer on 12 September 2007, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
	"The Wilson Doctrine applies to all forms of interception that are subject to authorisation by Secretary of State warrant."—[ Official Report, 12 September 2007; Vol. 464, c. 2103W.]
	Secondly, the question has been raised about interception of, or surveillance of, conversations with, any person—whether a suspect, a convicted criminal or otherwise—by their legal adviser. Those are all subject to explicit safeguards which generally prohibit such interception or surveillance.
	Mr. Speaker, I commend my statement to the House.

David Davis: I thank the Justice Secretary for advance sight of the statement. Indeed, I thank him for coming to the House rapidly to make the statement. Today he has told us what should happen—not what did happen. He has confirmed that the Wilson doctrine remains in force and that there have been no changes in process or practice, given the duty under the doctrine to notify the House of any such changes. I think he also confirmed that the alleged action—if it happened—was in breach of the spirit of the doctrine. By now he should be able to answer the question: who authorised this? Was it a Minister? Was it a policeman? If a policeman, at what rank was it authorised? Is there any truth in the rumours that appear to have been briefed to Nick Robinson of the BBC at lunchtime today?
	More generally, in what ways did the authorities fail to follow proper procedure? Were the breaches of the applicable protocol accidental, or a deliberate and pre-meditated short-circuiting of the system? In particular, was it known in advance that a Member of Parliament would be bugged, and if so, was an explicit decision made not to switch off the recording equipment? Was higher authorisation sought before making that decision?
	Clearly, there will be lessons to learn from this case, but can the Justice Secretary tell the House what the current arrangements are for ensuring compliance with the rules for authorising such recording of communications with MPs? What failures in the monitoring and review procedure allowed recordings of a Member of the House—made, we understand, in 2005 and 2006—to go unchecked for, in some cases, two and a half years? Those are all things that the Justice Secretary should be able to tell the House today. Others will take longer.
	The Government will need to establish whether this is an isolated case or whether other Members of Parliament have been bugged in the past. Everyone in the House understands and accepts the privileged nature of communications between a Member of Parliament and a constituent. Everyone, including the Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary, accept the almost absolute nature of that privilege. I say "almost" absolute because the question arises: what would happen if a Member of Parliament became implicated in some way in actions or communications relating to a terrorist plot? The Wilson doctrine is silent on that.
	The inquiry that the Justice Secretary proposes might consider that issue, and after it has concluded, the Prime Minister should consult the Leader of the Opposition and other Opposition parties and return to the House on the matter. Given the security interests involved, the discretion required and the importance of sustaining public and parliamentary confidence in the system in place, I welcome the proposed independent review, but I believe that as far as possible the full report should come to the House, not just to Ministers.
	The case has exposed two very serious risks. The first is that it is possible for the Executive to ride roughshod over the relationship between a Member of Parliament and his constituents—a relationship that is the very basis of parliamentary democracy. Secondly, the necessary authorisations for secret anti-terrorist activity may be being ignored. Wilson himself recognised that there is a "delicate balance"—his words—between the needs of security and democracy. It is the duty of Government to find and maintain that balance—and it is the job of the Justice Secretary in the next two weeks to re-establish that balance.

Douglas Hogg: It would seem as if something has happened that should not have happened, so there is a risk that other things that should not have happened might have happened. Can the terms of the inquiry be enlarged so that Sir Christopher Rose has an opportunity to identify, whether at Woodhill or anywhere else, conversations between prisoners on remand and their legal advisers have been recorded? If they have, not only is the integrity of the criminal justice system at risk, but individual convictions will be prejudiced and will probably have to be set aside. Sir Christopher would do well to examine, too, the question of whether private conversations with legal advisers have been recorded, whether at Woodhill or at other prisons?

Tony McNulty: No, I will not. I want to put things into context and I shall then spend a not inconsiderable time giving way, because there are clear local interests. However, I would like to introduce the context first, if I may.
	Government grant and central spending on services for the police will have increased by more than 60 per cent.—nearly £4 billion—between 1997-98 and 2010-11. That is a record of which we can be proud. Our investment over the past decade, as well as the significant investment from local tax payers and the delivery by police forces and authorities of substantial increases in efficiency, has helped to expand local policing, reduce crime and make our communities safer.
	Figures published on 24 January show that crime in England and Wales remains stable, according to the British crime survey, and that it has fallen by 9 per cent., according to the police recorded crime statistics. The risk of being a victim of crime, which is 23 per cent., has returned to its lowest level since the survey began in 1981. The police service has responded well to the many and varied demands placed on it. New challenges continue to arise and we must ensure that the service is in the best possible shape to meet them.
	The House will know that we see Sir Ronnie Flanagan's review of policing as an opportunity for wider debate about how best we can consolidate and build on progress and achievements to date, support the police as they meet new challenges and make the most of their collective talents and resources. As part of that process of wider consultation and review, as well as responding to Sir Ronnie's findings and recommendations, we intend to publish a Green Paper in spring 2008. The purpose is to consult on wider proposals for strengthening the framework that enables and supports the police service and its partners to deliver effectively for the public in the years ahead.

Tony McNulty: Absolutely, and I am very happy to do so. We spoke earlier about Avon and Somerset, and with 3.5 per cent. it is doing considerably better than the floor of 2.5 per cent. or the average of 2.7 per cent. Notwithstanding that, I take on board the point of my hon. Friend and other Members—not least those who represent constituencies in the Bristol area—that still more might be done to move towards that formula more readily than we have done thus far. That would help me, not least in the sense of notional gainers and losers. We must consider what would have happened if we had not moved towards the formula, where in reality forces are not gainers or losers per se, unless they are judged against the absolute instant implementation of the formula. Given the way these things work, that was never going to happen all at once.
	I am mindful that having taken a range of interventions, my speech has taken a good deal of time. I know that this debate is very important for hon. Members, who want to get their local points across, so I shall bring my remarks to a conclusion when I find an appropriate place in this telephone book of a speech to do so. However, may I just make two points in conclusion?
	Given that we have sought deliberately again to maximise the increase in general grant next year and we have ensured that all police authorities have received a guaranteed minimum increase in grant of 2.5 per cent, and given the delivery of efficiency gains, prudent budgeting and our making full use of available funding flexibilities—I was going to tell the House about those, but they will have to wait for another time—we believe there is no reason for excessive increases in the police precept on council tax. As I have suggested, much good work is being done across the police service. In pursing the new efficiency and productivity strategies, we must foster that good practice, disseminate it across the whole service and drive forward dynamically. I am always impressed by the drive for improvement and progress in all 43 authorities and forces, and I know that they operate in a dynamic environment that simply does not stand still and allow them to catch up or draw breath.
	As I have also said, we have had extensive deliberations with a range of key authorities and police. In fact, anyone who has wanted to come to see me has done so or is planning to do so over the coming weeks. We have listened carefully to stakeholders in determining the detail of this funding settlement, and I think we have got the balance right in distributing the available resources. The settlement will support the police service in meeting the challenges that lie ahead, it will help the police to deliver effectively for the public and it will protect our communities, so I commend the police grant report to the House.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Some time ago, it was suggested that Cheshire and Liverpool should amalgamate their police forces. Oddly enough, that decision did not meet with the unalloyed admiration of the citizens of Cheshire. Indeed, their representations were so effective that the plan was abandoned. That area was then the responsibility of the then Home Office Minister who is now Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.
	This three-year settlement may turn out to make that not only a pyrrhic victory, but one of gigantic proportions, for the citizens of my constituency. It will penalise Cheshire in no uncertain terms, and I want to make it clear why that is a matter of concern to me. The general public do not understand the relationship between the finances of central Government and local government. They are more inclined to believe people who say, "We want to dilute our powers from central Government and give them back to the people who are nearest to their constituents. We want local government to take many of the decisions that will affect the policing of the streets and the general level of protection that people have in their town centres and homes." Therefore, they do not always understand why decisions taken at central Government level seem in some manner not to chime with the decision to send those powers, and the finance needed to maintain those police forces, back to the areas in which they are so desperately needed.
	Cheshire will suffer enormously under this settlement. I have in the past made it an important aspect of my debates with local government elected officials to ask them why Cheshire has not, for a very long time, had a much higher police precept. It is essential not to cut at local authority level the money available, but to demand further amounts and make it clear to the population why those sums of money are necessary.
	Most people who live in certain areas of Crewe or in the centre of Nantwich, and who are there on a Friday or Saturday night, do not have difficulty in understanding the connection between money and police officers on the beat. Most people who find themselves, as the neighbours around my office building did after a recent weekend, surrounded by a sea of broken glass and having been submitted over a long period to real social disorder, have no problem understanding why we need police officers; indeed, they want to see many more. The burden of their complaint is frequently that no matter how much money is presented to them annually in the figures in their rates returns, those officers are not there on the beat. They are told clearly how much the police force costs them, but nevertheless, when they look for the neighbourhood policing about which they have heard so much, they find that it is somehow not there. Yet we are told that for the Cheshire police authority, the response to the Government's provisional funding allocations for 2008-09 to 2010-11 will mean that the grant settlement of 2.5 per cent. will only just cover inflation, and unless there are other settlements, it will result in the loss of 80 police officers from the front line. That is a massive, and quite unacceptable, cut.
	The police authority has not suddenly come across this state of affairs; it has made representations over a long period, saying that it would be facing a large funding gap of nearly £6 million even if it were just going to stand still—in other words, to overcome reliance on reducing reserves to support level 2 operational demands in the current year, to maintain its commitment to, and public support for, neighbourhood policing, and to support further efficiency. The authority is also aware that it is facing a double whammy. Not only does it not have a suitable settlement to enable it to improve and increase the amount of policing that my constituents can call upon, but it will be threatened with a cap if, for any reason, it succeeds in raising more money than Her Majesty's Government find acceptable.
	However, in the name of transparency, of which more anon, the Government have chosen to produce a grant formula that, frankly, is no clearer, and is in some ways more obfuscatory, than the ones we used to have. The method does not simplify the system, which was the reason behind its introduction, and it contains elements of notional levels of spend and tax-base calculations. For example, let us consider the formula issues raised with regard to Cheshire police authority. Why is the net relative needs/resource amount per head of population £3.53 in Cheshire and £10.26 in Avon and Somerset? We suffer equally badly when it comes to resource equalisation: 73.9 per cent. of the needs amount is deducted, on the assumption that Cheshire has a richer council tax base.
	Let us be clear about this. The Home Office is demonstrating a Janus-like ability to say to Cheshire on the one hand, "You're really just an adjunct of Liverpool and Manchester, so you must be reorganised so as to enable you to organise your affairs through a greater relationship with the city regions," while on the other hand it is saying, "But you have a much higher tax base." It is essential to look at the number of band D properties; we will then discover that council tax income is the third lowest in the country. Is it assumed that our council tax is higher, or is it simply assumed that Cheshire can be exempted from all the arrangements made in relation to other areas? In the past, Cheshire was given an area cost adjustment, along with London and the south-east counties, which recognised higher labour and living costs, but the average is now very low, and no longer of any benefit.
	A completely essential, but somehow ignored, element of policing in Cheshire is the development of attacks by organised crime. The cities that we are told are the drivers of affairs in our area are very good at disgorging their criminal elements on to the motorway and into our county, not least because the more efficient the policing is in the centres of cities, the more the instinct will be to develop organised crime elsewhere, where policing is perceived not to be of the same standard. We therefore require a much more expensive and intensive policing system.
	Cheshire has always taken a proactive stance against serious crime. We recently brought to justice in our area a criminal with repeated attempted murder and firearms offences after four other forces had failed to do so. That effort alone involved 90 witnesses and cost £200,000 pounds. However, no part of Her Majesty's Government is prepared to accept the cost to Cheshire of those direct attacks from the Liverpool and Manchester areas.
	Now we have a potential further constraint through capping. It is essential to understand that the missing £9.7 million needed to plug the funding gap will be obvious when we look to the provision of front-line services. The majority of ratepayers in Cheshire are more than prepared to pay a proper rate for policing services. They understand that their enjoyment of their homes and the calm in which they can use the services of their towns and cities depend on the provision of policemen on the beat. That is not an abstract theory, but a demonstration of practical understanding of the pressures on those areas. So far, however, we have been unprepared or unwilling to accept the absolute cost of the formulae to constituencies such as mine and counties such as Cheshire.
	Many of the formulae were developed in the name of transparency. The Department is good at saying how much it cares and how much it wishes to respond to the interest of individual taxpayers and ratepayers. The Home Secretary has made some engaging speeches about the need to respond. She says, for example, that wherever there is a petition containing more than 250 names, she will take note of the content of the petition. I do not know how she reconciles that with the fact that the 10 Downing street website now has a petition with more than 400 signatures that objects to the division of Cheshire into two bits—but I suppose we all have to have our little inconsistencies from time to time.
	When the Minister replies, will he give me one simple bit of information? The division introducing unwanted new local authorities has been imposed by the Department on the basis that it will not only improve the facilities but will be much cheaper and more efficient, and will roll us forward to a fantastically bright future. Cheshire county council made a freedom of information request to ask why there was a direct and clear difference between the figures originally given to the county council by the Department and those that were published subsequently: why was no FOI request accepted?
	If the report asked for by Paul Rowsell, to get an independent assessment by the Institute of Public Finance of the costs of reorganisation, was so strongly supportive of the Department's attitude, why are we not allowed to read it? If someone had said what a good job I had done, I would have thought that it might be a good idea to make that public. Indeed, I might seek to give it to everybody who inquired—but somehow or other, we are told, that is not the case.
	The draft Cheshire (Structural Changes) Order was laid before Parliament on 31 October, and will create two new authorities with, we were told, annual savings of £16 million and transitional costs of £25 million. Those numbers cannot be recognised from the original proposal to create two new authorities, which said that the ongoing savings would be £30 million with transitional costs of £16.6 million. In effect, the Government are saying that they do not accept the district figures. To put it another way, the headline transitional costs have increased by 50 per cent., the headline savings have reduced by 50 per cent. and the payback period has doubled to almost four years.
	Before the Department takes even more money away from Cheshire ratepayers and, before it is prepared to accept that we will lose 80 officers on the front line, whatever its decisions are, it should think seriously about how it intends to justify those policies. It may find that rather more difficult than it seems to anticipate.

David Ruffley: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would sensible for the Opposition to vote against the motion on the grounds that the formula is not being applied fairly, and the dispositions and allocations in the report are inadequate?

Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman has been talking about officials and the formula. It would be helpful if he asked his officials to reflect on the fact that one of the problems in rural areas is the absence of the rapid deployment of reinforcements. That is not taken account of at all in the formula, with the consequence that, if an officer is out on duty and faces a violent situation, there is no back up, and that is a particularly exposed position in which to be.

Tony McNulty: I am sure that the burghers of Northamptonshire are very grateful for all that the county council has done so far and would ask it to try a bit harder in future. The hon. Gentleman is also wrong to characterise the settlement as being unfair to the east midlands. Of the five forces in the east midlands, Northamptonshire was just below in terms of winning or losing on the grant by a couple of hundred thousand pounds, I think. The other four forces all gained from the shift in the formula, however limited that was over the year. The east midlands special operations unit is doing an excellent job, and its work impacts on Northampton, as well as the core three forces and, indeed, Lincoln. I want its funding to be sustained. We have still not sufficiently addressed the level 2 protective services gap that the mergers debate was all about a couple of years ago. The hon. Gentleman will know, as an east midlands Member, that by their own lights, the five east midlands forces were, on any risk assessment basis, in more difficulty in terms of that services gap than any other force in the country. That is why we sustained the necessary funding.
	The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds and many other hon. Members made points about the freezing of special grants. I take those points on board, but it is a matter of making a sharp political decision. We could have gone in one or two directions; we could have tried to limit more than we did in the end the central core grant and limit even more the flexibility that our forces require by putting in more and more money and inflation-proofing special grants. As a deliberate policy, we chose to put more money through the central grant. The hon. Gentleman and the House will know that, save pretty much for the neighbourhood policing fund that funds PCSOs, the rest of the general grant is not ring-fenced, thus affording the flexibility to allow the forces to do what they feel that they need to do in policing.
	It is right and proper, as Members have said, that after successive years of growth—that is the bit that they do not mention—we have frozen special grants. We needed to make that decision. I think that, on balance, most forces have welcomed the fact that the bulk of the moneys have gone through the central police grant. Indeed, Tim Brain, the chief constable of Gloucestershire and the ACPO lead on finance was prayed in aid in commenting on this year's settlement. He says:
	"I am pleased that the Home Secretary has recognised many of the arguments that ACPO and APA have presented over the last few months in the settlement announced today."
	To be honest, he continues:
	"While this is not a generous settlement, there appears to have been a genuine attempt at striking a balance between competing priorities."
	That is exactly what we seek to do nationally, and it is exactly what forces will seek to do locally. I do not think that the Northamptonshire police are on the list to come see me yet, but if they want to do so in the next couple of weeks, I am happy to meet them. I concur wholly about the service of Chief Constable Peter Madison; we wish him well in future.
	Policing is changing considerably all the time, as it must in order to reflect the communities that the police serve. I take the point about Surrey—I will be meeting Bob Quick—and points made by others about the range of services. As the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham kindly said, we have had extensive discussions with Lincolnshire police about their peculiar situation—peculiar as in distinct rather than strange. I have a meeting this week or next with them to take the matter forward. He will know that our Quest team, along with others examining the financial and other processes that police forces go through, is working with Lincolnshire police to help them; that goes beyond simply helping them to get over the budget process. As I have said to him—and to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, on occasions when he was in the room—we will do all that we can to work with them, but that work needs to take place within a framework.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) mentioned a freedom of information request regarding Cheshire and its particular circumstances. If it relates to police authorities rather than local government reorganisation, and if she wants to pursue it with me after this debate, I am happy for her to do so.
	As Tim Brain, chief constable of Gloucestershire, says, the issue is and has always been priorities. We could either have frozen the central police grant or, as most hon. Members asked us to do, made at least some progress towards implementing the new formula. Having done the latter, we are moving towards increases of between 2.5 and 4.01 per cent; the latter figure relates to West Midlands police. No matter how tight or difficult the settlement is, it should be appreciated that we have at least moved towards the new formula, rather than adopting very narrow confines as we did in the past couple of years.
	I take the points that many Members made about trying to move to the new formula, but as ever with such matters, for every gainer under the new formula, there is a loser. It does not matter terribly to anyone here but London MPs, but the Metropolitan police will lose £33 million when the formula is fully implemented. As a London Member, I hope that that situation will be ameliorated, and that things will not be done in too much of a hurry.
	Today we have discussed priorities, context and the circumstances of individual police forces, and a number of things should be said in conclusion. However tight the next three years are under the settlement that we are voting on, they follow seven, eight or nine years of extensive and sustained growth in investment in policing. Happily, that has been contributed to by local government, in varying degrees, as well as by central Government. Some authorities have contributed more than others; there is a marked distinction between Surrey's ability and willingness to do so and Lincolnshire's earlier lack of willingness, although that is only one of a range of problems that Lincolnshire faces.
	The Norfolk police are also coming to see me, I think. If not, and if the hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. Fraser) wants to organise such a visit, I am happy to meet them. I take the policing of our communities seriously, as do the Government. That is why there has been sustained investment in the past seven, eight or nine years, and why we want that investment to continue through efficiencies and other methods. PCSOs would not have existed without this Government, nor would there be record numbers of police officers on our streets, notwithstanding hon. Members' points about recent police numbers.
	As I said last year, if a more substantive, grown-up and reflective debate is needed about how we finance our police, let us have it, and let it be cross-party. If further discussions are needed about what resources we need for our police forces—that could include debate on how to free the police from inappropriate bureaucracy and paperwork, or on a sustained pay award met in full by Government—let them happen too. As a result of this Government's sustained investment in the police over the past 10 years, our police forces are in very good shape, notwithstanding the tight settlement. We are building on that sustained investment. We can now have a cross-party discussion about how to police our communities in future only because this Government have made a sustained investment, for which I know communities across the country are enormously grateful. I commend the motion to the House.

Lyn Brown: I welcome the continued increases of some 4 to 5 per cent. in local government finance by 2011. That is a stark contrast with the record of the Conservatives, who made real cuts in budgets of some 7 per cent.; as a local councillor during that time, I know just how difficult those days were. As I am not one for complacency, however, the Minister will understand if I press the case once again for Newham to be classed as an inner-London not an outer-London borough, because it has inner-London needs that are not yet reflected by its area cost adjustment allocation.

Nick Hurd: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he has been extremely generous in taking interventions.
	The building schools for the future programme is a core Government programme. Hillingdon council tells me that as a direct consequence of its grant, £15 million of capital spend it would like to deploy to support the programme is at risk because the revenue grant has taken them through the floor. An element of borrowing that was supported is now unsupported. Is that joined-up government, and what guidance would the Minister give to authorities such as Hillingdon that are in that predicament?

John Healey: I know Leeds well, although not as well as my hon. Friend. It has been successful in many areas in the past 10 years. We have carefully considered the methodology and the figures that we use. However, if one sets a threshold and criteria, some authorities will meet the criteria and others will not. Some authorities will come close to fulfilling the criteria and others will not. My hon. Friend's authority is one of 22, including mine, that have been eligible for money from the previous neighbourhood renewal fund but that are not eligible for payments from the working neighbourhoods fund. However, he knows that, to ensure that there is no cliff edge in funding, we will provide transitional funding of 60 per cent. for next year and 40 per cent. the following year. He should also bear it in mind that, by removing the strings that are attached to much funding for local councils, there is scope for them to make decisions about what they want to do to regenerate, improve the economy and make progress in areas such as some of those in his constituency.
	Today, I have published on the Department's website the confirmed allocations for next year from the working neighbourhoods fund. Twenty-two authorities will get transitional rather than full funding, and 65 authorities will get the full funding. In the next three years, our support, drawn for the first time from both the disadvantaged areas grant of the Department for Work and Pensions and our regeneration funding, will total approximately £1.5 billion, designed to concentrate our support on areas where deprivation continues to be most deep seated and difficult to dislodge.
	Also today, I have published on the Department's website the results of the refreshed consultation on the supporting people distribution formula, which closed last month. Following consideration of the responses, I am today confirming final allocations for next year.
	I am conscious that other hon. Members who want to speak, so I turn to the local authority business growth incentive. Earlier this year, in the light of new legal challenges, I announced that the Department intended to reconsider all aspects of the approach used to distribute the resources available for year 3 of the scheme. We have also looked again at payments that were made previously for years 1 and 2. I have today laid a written ministerial statement confirming that, in order to avoid the additional delay and uncertainty likely to be caused by further legal challenge, we intend to reward authorities on the basis of a wider set of rateable value change codes than was used previously, in years 1 and 2.
	The statement also discusses year 3 payments. It confirms our determination to achieve the policy aim of providing incentives to encourage business growth for local authorities. However, the inclination of a small number of authorities to pursue legal action has created greater complexity, uncertainty and delay. Given that, I consider that it will be necessary to retain a portion of year 3 funding, as a contingency in this final year of the current scheme. I will make further announcements providing more detail on payments for all three years as soon as possible.
	Finally on announcements, following the comprehensive spending review in October last year, we announced that a third round of local area agreement reward grant would be available. I can now confirm that the total amount available will be at least £340 million, plus an additional £50 million available in reward grant for more deprived areas, via the working neighbourhoods fund.
	In conclusion, the settlement does what it says on the tin. It builds on 10 years of continued real-terms investment; it covers three years; it is tight, fair and affordable; and it reflects many of the arguments that were put to us by local government. It is now for local government to deliver.

Bob Neill: I suspect that some reference to some part of west London is about to made.

Andrew Slaughter: I can give the figures from the top of my head. During the first nine years of Labour Government, Hammersmith and Fulham council, controlled by Labour, increased its council tax by an average of 3 per cent. a year. That compared with 9 per cent. in the country as a whole, about the same as the retail prices index. As the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about Hammersmith and Fulham council, he may wish to explain why the budget that it is agreeing tonight makes £36 million worth of cuts.

Jim Cousins: I came to the debate thinking it likely that I would vote against the Government on the settlement. In Newcastle, there has been a failure to recognise a new and growing population of short-term residents, many of whom are young and many of whom have special needs. They are not counted properly in the figures. Tonight, my hon. Friend the Minister has made a statement that gives me some hope that we will sort that problem out. I was also concerned about the Government backing down on the issue of giving councils an incentive to grow business in their area. I acknowledge that my hon. Friend told us that he will move forward on that front. He will make changes, and he will not back down in the face of legal action.
	I am also concerned that we cannot build long-term success for children and families and people with care needs in a city such as Newcastle on the basis of minimum grants that get smaller year by year. In his opening remarks, the Minister made a brief reference to the Government's review of care. I hope that when he replies, and at a later date, he will come back to that point because it is important.
	I say to the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy) that we have a Liberal Democrat council in Newcastle, and it has just said that because of the minimum floor, it will have to cut care provision, including the closure of a respite and day centre care home in Shieldfield in my constituency. I also say to her that 300 yd from Napier house, the respite care centre that is being closed down, the same council has bought out the lease of a run-down furniture warehouse at a cost that I believe to be equal to the entire cost of the care budget that the council is considering. Those decisions cannot be passed off on to the Government. This Liberal council says that it cannot modernise Napier house, but its capital funding from the Government has doubled in the last four years. Through economic benefits, it has raised £35 million in capital receipts from non-housing assets. The money was there to modernise that care home.
	I can also tell the hon. Lady that tonight in Newcastle another top manager has been appointed in the civic centre, at a cost of £130,000 a year. Top management costs in Newcastle have risen by £1 million a year since the Liberal Democrats took over. The use of consultants is on a spectacular scale, and probably runs to more than another £1 million a year, including the employment of consultants to operate the bulk of the council's internal audit service. That is a poor record, which shows that there is plenty of potential for dealing with those problems. Those matters must be addressed.

Alistair Burt: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) on his performance at the Dispatch Box in opening for our side and on dealing so ably with such a cunning fox on the other side. The Minister is a good man and handles his brief incredibly well, but his cunningness is such that he was able to carry off with great insouciance some of the things that he had to say, which my hon. Friend picked up so well.
	To use a football analogy that will be familiar to one or two hon. Friends, when a defender has ruthlessly cut down the forward running through and committed the most atrocious foul, he protests to the referee with the grandest of gestures, claiming that it could be nothing to do with him. When the Minister talks about a tight financial settlement as if it were an act of God and not the responsibility of the Government, who have spent a colossal amount over the past 10 years and are now having to pull the horns in, it is the political equivalent of spreading one's arms out to the referee and saying, "Nothing to do with me, guv," but we know that it is. That is what my hon. Friend spotted, and I look forward to his contributions on the subject for some time to come. I am glad that he is there and I am not.
	The settlement is wrong for two reasons. First, it is disingenuous. The general public understand inflation and think that if a council gets more than inflation, everything must be all right and that the money should be coming through effectively, but with the rise of 1 per cent. above inflation or whatever it is, the Government are giving the public the sense that, should there be any rises or cuts in services, they must be the council's fault. However, the Minister knows full—this has been well documented by hon. Members in all parts of the House—that the cost pressures in local government in some areas go well beyond 1 per cent. or whatever the gentle increase above inflation represented by the three-year settlement is.
	Social services have been mentioned, and they include not only care for the elderly, but special needs care for the youngest. Fortunately, more young children with complex and special needs now survive infancy. The costs of that generation as it grows is substantial and mirrors the cost at the other end of life, when those who are fortunate to be living longer have a greater need for more expensive care. These pressures have not yet been fully compensated for in the settlement, and it will be some time before they are.
	Colleagues have mentioned waste and highways. Some local examples from Bedfordshire will illustrate the disingenuousness. I pay tribute to the three local authorities in Bedfordshire with which I have close dealings, but they are coming to an end, because of local government reorganisation. The Conservatives have run two of them and been the majority party on the other, and all three have done remarkable things over the years. Bedfordshire county council has moved from having a rating of no stars to three in less than two years. Mid-Bedfordshire district council gets consistently good ratings for its local government performance, and Bedford borough council, on which Conservatives are in the majority, is rated an excellent council.
	I pay tribute to those councils in passing, but each of them can provide an example of the difficulties that the settlement will produce. In regard to social services care for the county, there is the floor issue. For the third consecutive year, the county council will lose money. Being a floored authority has cost it £5.8 million, which has put £39 on the council tax. The local authority business growth incentives scheme—LABGI—will also cost it money.
	Bedford borough council reports that the next three years' increase in the amount given for the concessionary fares scheme has been calculated by the Government at £450,000, £460,000 and £470,000. The extra £10,000 a year hardly covers inflation increases, and does not say much for the anticipated increase in the numbers of people using the buses. Two or three years ago, Mid-Bedfordshire district council was rate-capped for having the audacity to raise its band D council tax by £1 per month. The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) will understand this. It is now trying to provide weekly waste collections and to do the recycling that the Government want it to do, but it is not getting the support that it needs and will be in difficulty.
	My first charge is that this is a disingenuous settlement, and that it will not deliver what the public expect. We could have seen better. The second thing that is wrong with it is that it does not take the opportunity given to it by the three-year change of delivering one of the things that Lyons spoke of, and that my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) mentioned. It could have taken the opportunity to cut through the question of who is responsible for the increases and what the respective responsibilities of the Government and the local authorities are.
	Many of the contributions tonight have dealt with that dilemma. Colleagues have tried to say that, if the Government are responsible for one thing, the local council must be responsible for another. The Government just sit and let the blame be passed on. The Lyons report said that
	"an independent and authoritative voice is needed to provide better information on funding to inform the public and parliament about the impact of new burdens on local government and the evidence of future pressures".
	Lyons could see that the confusion between the responsibilities of the Government and of local government was eating away at the public's understanding of local government and of where responsibility for public finance lay. That is reducing the public's confidence. If all they ever see of national and local politicians is an endless passing of the buck, they will end up saying, "A plague on both your houses."
	The need for greater transparency is something that we have all recognised in the past few days in another context. The Government could have taken this opportunity to do what Lyons suggested, and to put in place a mechanism to provide that independent voice and to look authoritatively at the responsibilities of local government and of Parliament and central Government, and at the future pressures. The Government need to answer the conundrum by asking where fault and responsibility lie, and who should be credited with certain changes. That would address the serious issue that is affecting the heart of local government and people's relationship with it.
	The Minister is a fair man who is interested in these issues. I think that he heard me speak on this subject at the local government finance conference in December. I truly would like to see the Government take away that suggestion in the Lyons report and do something with it. If they did so, we would not have to deal with a disingenuous settlement in future. Instead, we would be dealing with a measure that met the concerns of colleagues on both sides of the House. We would have an honest and authoritative arrangement in which we could attach blame where blame truly lay, and in which credit could be given where it was rightly due. That would provide better settlements in the future, and I hope that the Minister will address that point. I hope that those on our side will also do so in due course.

Simon Burns: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of the report by Her Majesty's inspector of prisons on Chelmsford prison on the Adjournment, given that it came out only last week. I hope that the Minister agrees that the report raised some important issues that need to be addressed as a matter of urgency. That is why I sought this debate.
	Chelmsford prison is a Category B male local prison with a certified accommodation level of 570 prisoners, but it suffers from overcrowding, with an actual number held of around 680 to 690 prisoners. Prison officers do an excellent job in very difficult circumstances, given the strains and tensions placed on the prison by the number of prisoners held there.
	Over the past 10 years the prison has been inspected several times by Her Majesty's inspector of prisons, in both announced and unannounced inspections that have highlighted several problems. As a result, I am pleased to say, measures were taken to seek to rectify those problems. That is why it is so worrying that the latest report, following an announced inspection on 9 to 13 July last year, has highlighted so many serious problems. To add to the confusion, the annual report by the independent monitoring board at HMP Chelmsford for 2007, which in part covers the period of the HMI report, paints a far more positive picture of what is going on in the prison. I would be grateful if the Minister would comment on why there are some fundamental differences between the two reports, and say which report portrays a more accurate assessment of the situation.
	The most worrying problem that has emerged is the number of suicides in the prison. Until the end of 2006 there was one suicide a year. That is one suicide too many, but one can be heartened that the rate was below the national average for suicides in prisons. However, since May last year there have been four suicides in the prison. That is a deeply disturbing increase. I appreciate that it is difficult for the Minister or others to comment on the cases because inquests have not yet been held on all the suicides, but does the Minister have any idea why there has been such a dramatic and tragic increase in the number of suicides in the prison over the last 10 months, compared with the prison's previous record?
	The HMI report was damning on the subject of bullying, self-harm and suicide. Section 3 of the report states that everyone inside a prison should feel safe from bullying and victimisation. However, section 3.1 states that
	"A significant number of prisoners felt unsafe at Chelmsford. Bullying was a serious problem among the young adult population."
	Ann Owers stated that some 40 per cent. of prisoners felt unsafe at the time of the inspection, which is a staggeringly high proportion. Although an anti-bullying co-ordinator had been appointed, and the procedure for identifying bullying had been improved, she goes on to say that
	"there was still some under-reporting of incidents. Improvement targets for bullies were weak...and arrangements for victims were poor."
	On the subject of self-harm and suicide, the report states that the expected outcomes should be that
	"Prisons work to reduce the risks of self-harm and suicide...Prisoners at risk...are identified and a care and support plan is drawn up, implemented and monitored."
	However, section 3.18 of the report says:
	"Despite previous recommendations, Listeners and Insiders were not available in reception...Overall access to Listeners was generally poor. Initial self-harm monitoring assessor reports lacked detail, and there were insufficient monitoring entries that demonstrated positive engagement by staff."
	Will the Minister explain why previous recommendations concerning listeners were not implemented at the time, and what has now been done to ensure that the prison follows best practice?
	Will the Minister also explain why, following the suicide in October 2006 of a prisoner who had been placed directly on C wing because of overcrowding, and when the ombudsman had recommended after his investigation that listeners and insiders should be available in reception, the proposal was once again rejected by the establishment? Given what has happened since, it is important that we are told exactly why that recommendation was rejected at the time. Can the Minister confirm that implementation of the recommendation, which took place during the most recent inspection, is continuing?
	Will the Minister outline what is being done to implement the report's recommendations for minimising opportunities to self-harm and commit suicide? The recommendations were, first, to improve the quality of initial assessment, care in custody and teamwork—ACCT—reports; secondly, that staff monitoring entries in ACCT documents should demonstrate a high level of engagement with the prisoner; thirdly, that prisoners were to have 24-hour access to listeners, and, fourthly, that CCTV should not be used as an alternative to observation of and engagement with prisoners at risk of self-harm.
	I am slightly confused, however, because section 9 of the independent monitoring report, which deals with the issue of safer custody, portrays a slightly different assessment of the situation from that given in the HMI report. I accept that the HMI report went into much greater detail about self-harm and suicide, but the independent monitoring report is far more positive, and less critical, than the HMI report about what was going on during the same period. The independent monitoring report covers the whole of 2007 whereas the HMI report is a snapshot of a four-day period in July 2007, but would the Minister care to give an opinion as to why the two reports seem on the face of it to be sending out different messages about a critical point, given what has happened in the prison over the past year?
	I am sure the Minister agrees that everything possible must be done to minimise the opportunities for self-harm and suicide among prisoners. Will she assure me that everything will be done to implement recommendations in the report that have not already been acted on, to ensure that Chelmsford prison is safer and enjoys the most sophisticated best practice so that we can put an end to the ever-increasing number of suicides?
	I appreciate that a number of factors have contributed to the situation highlighted in the report. One is overcrowding. Given the pressures on our prisons at present and the time it takes to find extra capacity in the system, I accept that we cannot reverse the overcrowding problem immediately. However, in view of the pressures on staff and the tension in the prisoner population caused by overcrowding, what can be done to try to alleviate the problem on a short-term basis until a longer-term solution can, we hope, reduce overcrowding and return the prison to the situation of about seven or eight years ago?
	I have a further plea to make to the Minister. The independent monitoring report requests a response from her on its recommendation that the time that elapses between a death in custody and the holding of an inquest should be speeded up. Although the report accepts that steps have been taken to try to reduce the time between deaths in custody and inquests, the writers felt that nothing had actually happened to reduce the time, so I urge the Minister to address the problem. Does she have any ideas or recommendations as to how one might expedite the process so that inquests are heard far nearer to the time when the tragedy occurs? That would be in the best interests of the system as a whole: it would help to give closure to the parents, families and friends of those who die so tragically, and it could also help to identify precisely what went wrong in individual cases, and what recommendations could be made to try to ensure that no tragedy occurred again as a result of whatever cause led to the suicide in question.
	I should like briefly to touch on another area highlighted by the HMI report: education and employment in the prison. I personally believe that prison serves two purposes: punishment for the individual and, equally importantly, an opportunity for rehabilitation. However, rehabilitation can be achieved only if prisoners reach a certain level of education. The HMI report shows that nearly a third of people in Chelmsford prison had been unemployed and a further third had been involved in activities that provided no skills or qualifications. It is critical, to assist with rehabilitation and minimise reoffending rates, that levels of literacy and education be raised among prisoners. That will give those prisoners a golden opportunity to make a fresh start on release and to minimise their opportunities to reoffend. They will have gained a level of literacy and education that not only incentivises them to try to find employment but makes them more attractive to employers, so that in the very difficult circumstances of released prisoners, they can secure jobs.
	In that respect, Chelmsford prison has been extremely fortunate, because it has benefited from the work of Jackie Hewitt Main, who has created the Mentoring 4 You programme. Using research on the prisoners, she has identified that a significant number of them suffer from dyslexia, which is, of course, the root of a great deal of illiteracy in the prison system and, for that matter, outside the prison system. She has established a programme in which other prisoners are engaged to help prisoners who suffer from dyslexia and dyspraxia to overcome or minimise their literacy problems. It is an exciting and potentially very beneficial programme, but like many other good ideas, it suffers from funding problems.
	I urge the Minister to liaise with her colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) —I hope to do so, too, personally if I can secure a meeting with him. He is responsible for the funding of such programmes in our prison system, and we could try to persuade his Department to provide funding for that imaginative and important scheme. I also urge her to study the reports that have been conducted on the Mentoring 4 You programme in Chelmsford prison, because they are very positive and hopeful. If she were to agree with my analysis, and that of Ofsted, that the project is positive and worth while, she should consider rolling out the programme to other prisons, so that other prisoners can benefit from that sort of programme and enjoy the same benefits as those enjoyed by prisoners in Chelmsford prison. That will help to enable prisoners with dyslexia and dyspraxia to reduce their illiteracy and give them an opportunity to take positive steps forward, so that when they are released there is the beneficial impact of minimising the likelihood of their reoffending.
	In conclusion, I believe that the HMI report has highlighted some important problems and issues at Chelmsford prison, especially given the suicides in the prison in the past nine months. We must move forward; we must to ensure that best practice is employed and that everything is done to minimise a repetition of what happened. We must never lose sight of the fact that the management and prison officers are doing an extremely good job, often in difficult circumstances. We must give them the support and assistance to rectify the problems highlighted in the report, so that when Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons revisits the prison, it sees serious improvements in the regime.
	We can talk for as long as we like about the problems and how to identify them, but what is important is getting solutions. We have to make sure that talk leads to action, and that we ensure a better, safer environment not only for prisoners but for prison officers, so that they can carry out their job and serve society.

Maria Eagle: I congratulate the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on securing the debate. He is well-known for taking an interest in the prison in his constituency. I thank him for that, because visiting prisons and making sure that one is fully aware of what goes on in them is not top of every hon. Member's list. However, it clearly is close to the top of his list, and I congratulate him on that.
	The hon. Gentleman set out in some detail the findings of the report on the inspection that Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons carried out between 9 and 13 July 2007. The report was published on 24 January this year. It made more than 150 recommendations and, as is the case with all inspection reports by the inspectorate, an action plan will be produced that responds in detail to every one of the recommendations. The action plan will be provided to the chief inspector of prisons and I will approve it. The chief inspector acknowledged in her recent annual report that the Prison Service responds positively to her reports and accepts over 95 per cent. of her recommendations. We are determined that, as we follow the processes, the correct lessons will be learned, and the correct actions taken.
	I can report that there has been progress. The chief inspector's report was published only recently, but the inspection took place six months ago, and the Prison Service and Chelmsford have been getting on with trying to implement her recommendations and dealing with the issues that she rightly raised. A good deal more progress is in the pipeline. In view of the concerns that the chief inspector listed, and which the hon. Gentleman has repeated, I think that it would be appropriate for me to highlight some of the things that have been done to carry out the chief inspector's recommendations. In cataloguing the progress made, I do not seek to downplay in any way the seriousness of her findings. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that we fully intend to continue to bear down on the faults that she identified.
	The prison is coming to the end of a new building and refurbishment project that has provided a 120-bed unit and workshops for brickwork, woodwork, plumbing and electrical work. It also provides additional classroom space, and there is IT-based learning through Learn Direct. An extension to the gymnasium facilities is nearing completion. The extension will provide additional purposeful activity spaces and includes a new shower area. After numerous surveys, the governor believes that a solution to the problem of not being able to provide showers consistently on B and C wings has been found, and work is to start shortly to improve the water pressure on those Victorian wings. That should do something to improve the situation and end some of the problems that the chief inspector highlighted.
	There is no doubt that the standard of accommodation varies widely across the establishment. New wings are coming into use, but there are inherent difficulties with some of the Victorian wings, which it is impossible to remove. We have to do what we can with them.
	The prison has reviewed the processes in reception, which has resulted in newly received prisoners spending less time in the area, and being moved to the first-night centre to complete the process. The centre provides a better environment for staff and prisoners to complete risk assessments and medical documentation.
	Listeners and insiders are used regularly in reception, but because less time is spent in reception, the need is met predominantly in the first-night centre. There are 12 listeners, who have been trained by the Samaritans, and the prison also uses insiders— experienced prisoners who receive training and provide valuable support in the first-night centre, where they interview all new receptions, and offer advice and support at peer level.
	The anti-bullying policy has been reviewed, and staff and prisoners are fully aware of the processes. The prison has introduced prisoner wing anti-bullying representatives—trusted and experienced prisoners who can help staff in identification of, and support for, prisoners who are subject to acts of bullying. That has provided an opportunity for victims of bullying to report safely and freely any such acts, and allow them to be dealt with in a timely and efficient manner.
	Since the inspection, the location for vulnerable prisoners has been changed from the Victorian D wing to the new G wing, which provides the vulnerable prisoner population with a safer environment, where main prisoner moves do not affect the regime of those on the unit. Young offenders have been moved from C wing and integrated across the establishment, which has allowed the prison to manage the more volatile, gang-related culture in a more holistic manner. The area manager is seeking to reduce the young offender population, which has recently risen. Two thirds of the population are from out of the area, the majority of them from London.
	The prison has looked at the use of control and restraint, and it has introduced a use of force review, in which the governor, the head of operations, the safer custody manager, the control and restraint instructor, and a representative of the Prison Officers Association meet to review the previous month's incidents. Since the inspection, there has been a marked reduction, I am happy to say, in instances of control and restraint, adjudications, and the use of special accommodation and body belts, which were mentioned by the inspector in her report. In fact, body belts have not been used in the past six months, and special accommodation usage has also reduced by 55 per cent. in that period.
	At the time of the inspection, staffing was a major problem, and the establishment had a shortfall of about 25 officers at the end of August. I am pleased to report that, as a result of a major recruitment drive, the prison is in a much more stable position, with a much more manageable shortfall of six officers, and it should be up to complement by March.
	Key to the prison's response to the chief inspector's report and the implementation of her recommendations is the staff response. The hon. Gentleman was right to say what a great job the staff do, and how difficult it can be. I acknowledge the truth of what he says. Like him, I wish to place on record the Government's thanks for the efforts of staff at all levels. He referred to individuals who have done outstanding work, which he has seen on his visits, but they all do a good job, often in trying circumstances.
	One way in which prison management can determine staff morale is to look at the number of staff who engage in the annual survey. I am pleased to be able to report that the number of staff taking part in the survey rose from 26 per cent. to 65 per cent. last year, indicating a greater engagement. People think that it is useful to fill in the survey, so it is a good pointer to improved morale. The governor is right to believe that morale is improving and that staff want to be involved in taking the prison forward.
	In the remaining time, I wish to deal with specific points made by the hon. Gentleman. He rightly raised the issue of self-inflicted deaths in custody, particularly the three deaths in six weeks at Chelmsford. I should say at the outset that every death in prison affects families, staff and other prisoners deeply. Ministers and the Prison Service are completely committed to reducing the number of such tragic incidents. Following the most recent death on 8 January, the Prison Service undertook an immediate review of systems and practices around suicide and self-harm at Chelmsford. The key findings were that staff across all the areas in the prison that were visited were knowledgeable about safer custody issues, and motivated to provide a good level of care; and that the reception was well run, although a number of suggestions have been made about its general layout and the provision of resources such as health care and listeners, and the further identification of high-risk groups.
	Assessment, care in custody and teamwork documents, the care planning system for prisoners at risk of suicide or self-harm, were of a good quality overall. There were common areas for development, including an overlap between the assessor and the case manager role, a lack of clarity in the required frequency of conversations and observations, and the recording of those.
	Before the review, we were all aware that the four most recent self-inflicted deaths, dating back to May 2007, happened on different wings and at varying times of the day and involved a mixture of sentenced and unsentenced prisoners who had been at Chelmsford for varying lengths of time. There seemed to be no particular, discernible pattern. Thankfully, the review has highlighted no extra issues that might indicate a disturbing institutional problem. Staff at the prison are obviously very concerned and distressed at the spate of recent deaths and will continue to take that aspect of their work extremely seriously. There are numerous examples of groups of close-together deaths at various establishments, and they always have a traumatic effect. It is right for us to seek to learn every possible lesson to minimise such activity.
	The hon. Gentleman made some points about outstanding inquests. Five inquests relating to deaths at Chelmsford are currently outstanding. The earliest case involved a death in October 2006. One of the issues is that the Prison Service's and probation service's ombudsman has to produce his report before the inquest can go ahead. The report on that case was received in October 2007. The inquest is scheduled for May 2008. The coroner is awaiting reports on the other four deaths; that is often one of the things that holds up inquests. We need the inquests to be carried out as swiftly as possible for the benefit of all—not only for the deceased's family, for whom it is a very distressing time, but for staff and other prisoners, so that any lessons can be learned. We encourage the speediest possible process, so that the inquest can go ahead as quickly as is commensurate with proper investigation.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned differences that he perceived in tone and outcome between the chief inspector of prison's report and the independent monitoring board report. We have only just received the IMB report and I have not yet had the chance to respond properly to it. However, I can say that the chief inspector of prisons and the IMB are independent and entitled to report as they see fit. The main difference between the two is that the IMB sees the prison operating day in, day out and goes in frequently to work alongside staff and prisoners. Naturally, its members develop an affinity for the establishment. Perhaps it is rather different for the chief inspector, who goes in for a few days to form a view to base her report on. She also goes to other establishments and so can compare and contrast. All I can say is that I guess they look at a prison from slightly different angles. I certainly intend to answer fully the questions raised for my attention in respect of the IMB report.
	The hon. Gentleman asked what is being done to implement recommendations to minimise the opportunities for self-harm and suicide, and I have said a little about that already. We certainly intend to bear down on that issue, which was raised in both reports. It gives some clue on why there has been such a spate of self-harm. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, such things are not easy to pin down. However, there is no doubt that we are fully committed at the establishment and Government levels, and with others, to try to make sure that we minimise the incidence of self-harm and suicide. We need to focus on that particularly, given what has recently occurred at Chelmsford—
	 The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker  adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	 Adjourned at sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.